SALEM: Uncertainty has again surrounded the proposed textile park in Salem, with two sections taking opposing positions over the project following the state government's recent decision to restructure it.
While one group sought for the project to be scrapped over fears that dyeing units could be introduced later, another sought its implementation without the dyeing units, citing the employment, export and economic opportunities it could bring to the district.
Announced in 2021 as an Rs 880-crore project, the park was originally planned to include dyeing units under the Salem Yarn Colouring Park (SYCP), along with a Common Effluent Treatment Plant and Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). Farmers and residents opposed the proposal, saying dyeing units could affect groundwater and agriculture in nearby villages.
The protests intensified in November 2025, bringing work at the site to a halt. No major work has taken place at the site since then.
Following the change in government, the project underwent a change. Salem Collector K Elambahavath said on July 24 that a government order issued on July 22 had changed the project from Salem Yarn Colouring Park to Salem Integrated Textile Park Private Limited. The G.O. also directed SIPCOT to identify another suitable location for setting up zero-liquid-discharge dyeing units.
However, those opposing the project said the GO had not given a clear assurance that dyeing units would not be allowed inside the textile park in the future. M Arun Kumar, secretary of the Salem Water Sources Protection Movement, said the order mainly changes the name of the project and directs SIPCOT to identify another location for dyeing units.
He said the G.O. only mentions that all 110 industrial plots be allotted exclusively to industries engaged in textile-related activities, apart from directing SIPCOT to identify another location for zero-liquid-discharge dyeing units. The absence of a clear provision ruling out dyeing units inside the park in the future, he said, continued to worry residents.
"Once the park becomes operational, it would be difficult for residents to monitor or oppose such a move," he said. The group has sought that the project itself be dropped and another industry with employment potential be considered instead, without putting local water sources and agriculture at risk.
On the other hand, another section of residents welcomed the textile park, saying their objection was only to the dyeing units and not to the park itself. G. Surendra Kumar, a daily wage worker who recently petitioned the Collector seeking early implementation of the project, said he wanted the park to come up so that he and members of his family could find employment.
"We have clearly said that we do not want dyeing units and only want the textile park to be established. We are firm on this demand," he said. He added that after submitting the petition, he faced considerable opposition and humiliation in his locality.
Supporters said the textile park could create jobs, attract textile investments, boost exports and strengthen Salem's economy, provided dyeing units are excluded.
Those supporting the project have also alleged that some of the opposition could be driven by vested interests, claiming that certain people with interests in groundwater extraction near the proposed site were attempting to influence public opinion against the project.